4 ms·

But isn’t the us military unusually large (or is that just a media perception?)

dataflow 3y ago
Depends on whether you consider the argument that it's indirectly protecting other countries too, I think.
softg 3y ago
Not propotionally, no. The US comes 77th out of 150 or so countries in number of active military personnel per capita. Small countries with an existential threat looming over them like the two Koreas and Cuba have unusually large militaries compared to their size. The US is the third most populous country so its military is still exceptionally big in absolute terms. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_...
dragonwriter 3y ago
US defense spending is large in absolute terms, and per GDP for a liberal democratic state. The US military isn't large in terms of personnel in uniform as a share of population, though.
- ostbender 3y ago
  It's proportionally large because the other liberal democratic states conveniently depend on the US for protection.
kypro 3y ago
The military in terms of personnel or spending? US military spending is large.
lainga 3y ago
It is unusually well-funded, and also large in absolute numbers, but not proportionally to the population. Greece and South Korea, for instance, have 1.3% and 1.1% of their populations in active service. When you include reservists (of varying quality) the cake goes to North Korea with 30% (!), but notably also Cuba (11%), Taiwan (7.8%), Israel (7.6%). During WWII, many nations managed to cumulatively mobilize 10-15% of their population (about 9%, 16 million, for the USA).
anonporridge 3y ago
The US military is unusually large, but that's primarily because the US economy is unusually large. The US does spend more than average, but we're talking 3.5% vs the global average of 2.2% of GDP. So, the overwhelming might of the US military isn't because Americans are rapid warmongers, but because the US economy is the most productive per capita of all large countries by a massive margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
alwayslikethis 3y ago
No. Rather, it's that many other countries are benefitting the US-led global peace since WW2 such that they can afford to keep unusually small militaries compared to historical norms. Pre-modern states spent way more on defense, and that is what would happen if US dominance weakens and large wars become plausible again.
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  > US-led global peace since WW2 This reads like a euphemism.
  - southernplaces7 3y ago
    I get where you're coming from, considering the many smaller and proxy wars that the U.S. has involved itself in since WWII but the point of the other comment is also true to a great extent: First, if you think Stalin wouldn't have taken his armies right to the Atlantic coast of France after crushing the Nazis, you'd be badly mistaken. It was specifically U.S. military power (and the atomic bomb) that stopped him from trying this. The rest of the allied powers were too exhausted and small to be credible deterrents. After that, over the following decades on multiple occasions, the same thing applied, a major power, like the USSR or China was tacitly or openly stopped from taking things further or attacking more specifically because of US presence in the background. This applies to South Korea for sure, but also to many places in central Europe and elsewhere. Today, the U.S. remains as the biggest deterrent of further Russian encroachment into places aside from those that it specifically considers its rightful domains (Ukraine, for example, where even foreign threats of retaliation couldn't stop a nationalistic sense of having the right to attack). I'd argue that this is one of the major reasons why Finland wasn't invaded long ago. (U.S. presence and the dawning realization among the Russian leadership that its supposedly strong remodernized military is much shittier, weaker and more corrupt than it was "supposed" to be.)

Depends on whether you consider the argument that it's indirectly protecting other countries too, I think.

Not propotionally, no. The US comes 77th out of 150 or so countries in number of active military personnel per capita. Small countries with an existential threat looming over them like the two Koreas and Cuba have unusually large militaries compared to their size. The US is the third most populous country so its military is still exceptionally big in absolute terms. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_...

dragonwriter 3y ago

US defense spending is large in absolute terms, and per GDP for a liberal democratic state. The US military isn't large in terms of personnel in uniform as a share of population, though.

ostbender 3y ago
It's proportionally large because the other liberal democratic states conveniently depend on the US for protection.

kypro 3y ago

The military in terms of personnel or spending? US military spending is large.

lainga 3y ago

It is unusually well-funded, and also large in absolute numbers, but not proportionally to the population. Greece and South Korea, for instance, have 1.3% and 1.1% of their populations in active service. When you include reservists (of varying quality) the cake goes to North Korea with 30% (!), but notably also Cuba (11%), Taiwan (7.8%), Israel (7.6%). During WWII, many nations managed to cumulatively mobilize 10-15% of their population (about 9%, 16 million, for the USA).

anonporridge 3y ago

The US military is unusually large, but that's primarily because the US economy is unusually large. The US does spend more than average, but we're talking 3.5% vs the global average of 2.2% of GDP. So, the overwhelming might of the US military isn't because Americans are rapid warmongers, but because the US economy is the most productive per capita of all large countries by a massive margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

alwayslikethis 3y ago

No. Rather, it's that many other countries are benefitting the US-led global peace since WW2 such that they can afford to keep unusually small militaries compared to historical norms. Pre-modern states spent way more on defense, and that is what would happen if US dominance weakens and large wars become plausible again.

teaearlgraycold 3y ago
> US-led global peace since WW2 This reads like a euphemism.
- southernplaces7 3y ago
  I get where you're coming from, considering the many smaller and proxy wars that the U.S. has involved itself in since WWII but the point of the other comment is also true to a great extent: First, if you think Stalin wouldn't have taken his armies right to the Atlantic coast of France after crushing the Nazis, you'd be badly mistaken. It was specifically U.S. military power (and the atomic bomb) that stopped him from trying this. The rest of the allied powers were too exhausted and small to be credible deterrents. After that, over the following decades on multiple occasions, the same thing applied, a major power, like the USSR or China was tacitly or openly stopped from taking things further or attacking more specifically because of US presence in the background. This applies to South Korea for sure, but also to many places in central Europe and elsewhere. Today, the U.S. remains as the biggest deterrent of further Russian encroachment into places aside from those that it specifically considers its rightful domains (Ukraine, for example, where even foreign threats of retaliation couldn't stop a nationalistic sense of having the right to attack). I'd argue that this is one of the major reasons why Finland wasn't invaded long ago. (U.S. presence and the dawning realization among the Russian leadership that its supposedly strong remodernized military is much shittier, weaker and more corrupt than it was "supposed" to be.)